We got the #3 pick. Discuss the possibilities. (9 Viewers)

[PCmor7]

I like Markkanen, but he isn't a good enough player to command that kind of asset in return.

 

[inconceivable]

Dame just shared on his IG story someone hitting a game winning 3 against Wemby's team. What could it mean?

 

[julius]

I think people over-state things a bit. For starters, I got the vibe that Dame was talking about someone in the 6-9 range of "19 year olds" that won't produce as much right way. I.e., someone like Little, Simons, Collins, etc.

Bur realistically even with a trade for a veteran, the team is a year away from being competitive (in the sense of making it past the 1st round). So if they keep the pick and it's someone like Scoot or Miller, I don't think they'd be 3-4 years away.

not saying I think they'll keep the pick, but that I don't think it's as clear as "Dame don't want a rookie".

 

[inconceivable]

I think people over-state things a bit. For starters, I got the vibe that Dame was talking about someone in the 6-9 range of "19 year olds" that won't produce as much right way. I.e., someone like Little, Simons, Collins, etc.

Bur realistically even with a trade for a veteran, the team is a year away from being competitive (in the sense of making it past the 1st round). So if they keep the pick and it's someone like Scoot or Miller, I don't think they'd be 3-4 years away.

not saying I think they'll keep the pick, but that I don't think it's as clear as "Dame don't want a rookie".

I really do find it interesting that he follows scoot on IG (but not miller). I found out after the lottery, so not sure if he followed him before or after. Do Dame and Scoot have any involvement of any capacity linking them together?

 

[SharpesTriumph]

I like Markkanen, but he isn't a good enough player to command that kind of asset in return.

Yeah the #3 pick if traded for a vet needs to be a two way all NBA level of player.

I'd have loved if we could've got Markkanen back when his value was similar to Larry Nance. That ship has sailed though. If the Blazers had elite defenders at any of the SG/Forward/Center positions, perhaps you make an argument for bringing him here.

The Blazers have none of those, they desperately need defensive players if they are going to win now with Dame. If they aren't going to win now, then Lauri makes no sense for a rebuilding team. So regardless of the direction the Blazers go, Lauri doesn't make sense coming to Portland.

 

[SharpesTriumph]

I think people over-state things a bit. For starters, I got the vibe that Dame was talking about someone in the 6-9 range of "19 year olds" that won't produce as much right way. I.e., someone like Little, Simons, Collins, etc.

Bur realistically even with a trade for a veteran, the team is a year away from being competitive (in the sense of making it past the 1st round). So if they keep the pick and it's someone like Scoot or Miller, I don't think they'd be 3-4 years away.

not saying I think they'll keep the pick, but that I don't think it's as clear as "Dame don't want a rookie".

LeBron also said he'd think about retiring on Monday, I don't think that's happening either. Players get frustrated and want to see actions happen and see the team improve. Their thoughts change during the offseason and once they get time away from the losses which ended their season.

Lillard wanted the pick traded last year then was ultimately happy with Shae. I think he would be happy with Brandon Miller, who is born a year before Sharpe and more NBA ready, but only if the team does legitimate efforts to acquire an elite veteran and none are attainable. I don't think he would be happy with Scoot as the third PG, or Amen who is more of a project.

I think for Lillard getting a few useful vets such as for the MLE, backup vet minimum center taller than 6'9", etc that the team totally ignored last offseason will make a big difference as well.

 

[UKRAINEFAN]

You would rather have KAT?

Yes. But he won't be available until at least the trading deadline. MN wants to try a little longer to see if he and Gobert can co-exist. (I'm only saying I value KAT more than Ayton, not that I want KAT).

 

[blazerkor]

Yes. But he won't be available until at least the trading deadline. MN wants to try a little longer to see if he and Gobert can co-exist. (I'm only saying I value KAT more than Ayton, not that I want KAT).

What makes you say that? That pairing was a disaster. I think they would love to move KAT or Gobert before playing together further diminishes both of their trade value. I'm not saying that KAT would be cheap or that he's the ideal guy for us to go after. I'm saying that you saying that KAT "won't be available" like he's untouchable is either nonsense or you have an inside source... I'm leaning towards nonsense.

 

[PCmor7]

Bur realistically even with a trade for a veteran, the team is a year away from being competitive (in the sense of making it past the 1st round).

I'm going to piggyback on this because it approached something similar I wanted to address.

Not only is this team probably more than one superstar-vet addition/one year from contending, I think the presumed positive impact of acquiring a player like that is a bit romanticized.

Kyrie. Westbrook. Durant. Harden. George. Simmons. All of these were supposed to be trades that changed the landscape for the teams that acquired them.

None of them have, have they? Several of them actually have made teams worse. Some of them multiple times. Some of them have left franchises in a shambles.

Add Gobert to that, too.

I was trying to think of notable exceptions to that in the last 10 years. Kawhi to the Raptors definitely accomplished what it was supposed to do, putting a team that had been right there over the top. Maybe you could say Jrue did that, too; it definitely was a blockbuster trade , but Jrue only'd made one all-star team in his 11 previous years and he's only made all-NBA as a defender -- plus, the trade the Bucks swung for him was made on very favorable immediate terms ... they still don't really feel the brunt of what they gave up for a couple of years.

Anthony Davis? Debatable. Yes, the Lakers won a title with him and LeBron, but, for the investment, I think most people (and most Laker fans) expected more than one trip to the finals and one season of winning more than 43 games in four years.

You could argue the Chris Paul-to-the-Suns trade worked because he definitely elevated Phoenix, but he also was a 15-year vet that wasn't acquired for a slew of assets (one protected 1R pick leaving the Suns + 2 role-player-level semi-starters). The Suns have regressed so considerably in two years since making the finals then that they just fired their coach. Actually, the two times he was involved in the "game-changing" trade in his prime, it basically flopped. He even ended up being moved after that to try to acquire a game-changer.

When you think about it, all that talk about knowing what you're getting when you trade for players like this is kind of a myth. The hit rate on these kinds of trades isn't a whole lot different than drafting in the top five.

 

[BIG Q]

When you think about it, all that talk about knowing what you're getting when you trade for players like this is kind of a myth. The hit rate on these kinds of trades aren't a whole lot different than drafting in the top five.

Just a completely awesome sentence. So very, very true. Trades are every bit the crap shoot as drafting, but drafting in the top three typically has a very good outcome. Also, if you miss, the financial strain is much less as well as the assets offered up in the trade for the veteran. Well done.

 

[Tince]

hasn't Brown had an ongoing issue with one of his knees? Typically, knee issues don't just go away. Typically they get worse until a player retires

STOMP

Yes, that is correct.

The perfect, never injured, young, All-NBA player will not be available for #3 and Ant. There is going to be some sacrifice and risk involved if a move is made. Unless we want to kick the can down other five years and continue to draft/develop internally and sign role players.

 

[julius]

I'm going to piggyback on this because it approached something similar I wanted to address.

Not only is this team probably more than one superstar-vet addition/one year from contending, I think the presumed positive impact of acquiring a player like that is a bit romanticized.

Kyrie. Westbrook. Durant. Harden. George. Simmons. All of these were supposed to be trades that changed the landscape for the teams that acquired them.

None of them have, have they? Several of them actually have made teams worse. Some of them multiple times. Some of them have left franchises in a shambles.

Add Gobert to that, too.

I was trying to think of notable exceptions to that in the last 10 years. Kawhi to the Raptors definitely accomplished what it was supposed to do, putting a team that had been right there over the top. Maybe you could say Jrue did that, too; it definitely was a blockbuster trade , but Jrue only'd made one all-star team in his 11 previous years and he's only made all-NBA as a defender -- plus, the trade the Bucks swung for him was made on very favorable immediate terms ... they still don't really feel the brunt of what they gave up for a couple of years.

Anthony Davis? Debatable. Yes, the Lakers won a title with him and LeBron, but, for the investment, I think most people (and most Laker fans) expected more than one trip to the finals and one season of winning more than 43 games in four years.

You could argue the Chris Paul-to-the-Suns trade worked because he definitely elevated Phoenix, but he also was a 15-year vet that wasn't acquired for a slew of assets (one protected 1R pick leaving the Suns + 2 role-player-level semi-starters). The Suns have regressed so considerably in two years since making the finals then that they just fired their coach. Actually, the two times he was involved in the "game-changing" trade in his prime, it basically flopped. He even ended up being moved after that to try to acquire a game-changer.

When you think about it, all that talk about knowing what you're getting when you trade for players like this is kind of a myth. The hit rate on these kinds of trades isn't a whole lot different than drafting in the top five.

to piggy back your piggyback...how much of a difference, realistically, did Grant make last year? While I wouldn't be upset with Bridges or Brown, I'm not sure if they'd make enough of a difference. Especially if the bench becomes anemic.

 

[Tince]

And why would Joe do that deal without assurances said player can be re-signed to a new deal. He's not stupid. And Dame would not want that either.

Correct. Same thing happened with Jerami Grant. Common practice in the NBA.

 

[SharpesTriumph]

What makes you say that? That pairing was a disaster. I think they would love to move KAT or Gobert before playing together further diminishes both of their trade value. I'm not saying that KAT would be cheap or that he's the ideal guy for us to go after. I'm saying that you saying that KAT "won't be available" like he's untouchable is either nonsense or you have an inside source... I'm leaning towards nonsense.

I agree with his conclusion; I don't think they would move on from KAT unless they get some prime assets like pick #3. I don't think any other team is offering close to that value with KAT huge contract and uncertainty if he can win. So I agree they are extremely likely to run it back.

KAT missed a ton of games as well, and the team won more against Denver than the Lakers. I don't know KATs value has ever been lower. Minnesota had stretches where they looked pretty good, then disaster stretches such as losing to the G League Blazers. Edwards is still really young and they have time to evaluate who to pair with him long term. They see how the season goes and either do a move at the deadline or next offseason. Next offseason the cap projections may start going up thus their center contracts also will have a fewer years and start to look better.

 

[Tince]

to piggy back your piggyback...how much of a difference, realistically, did Grant make last year? While I wouldn't be upset with Bridges or Brown, I'm not sure if they'd make enough of a difference. Especially if the bench becomes anemic.

No one move is going to take a lottery team and make them a contender. It's going to take a trade (or two), quality signing (or two), and proper use of later draft picks (or two) to fill out a roster.

Brown/Bridges + Grant is A LOT better than say Aminu & Harkless though. And it's harder to fill out the top of a roster than it is the bench.

 

[SharpesTriumph]

I'm going to piggyback on this because it approached something similar I wanted to address.

Not only is this team probably more than one superstar-vet addition/one year from contending, I think the presumed positive impact of acquiring a player like that is a bit romanticized.

Kyrie. Westbrook. Durant. Harden. George. Simmons. All of these were supposed to be trades that changed the landscape for the teams that acquired them.

None of them have, have they? Several of them actually have made teams worse. Some of them multiple times. Some of them have left franchises in a shambles.

Add Gobert to that, too.

I was trying to think of notable exceptions to that in the last 10 years. Kawhi to the Raptors definitely accomplished what it was supposed to do, putting a team that had been right there over the top. Maybe you could say Jrue did that, too; it definitely was a blockbuster trade , but Jrue only'd made one all-star team in his 11 previous years and he's only made all-NBA as a defender -- plus, the trade the Bucks swung for him was made on very favorable immediate terms ... they still don't really feel the brunt of what they gave up for a couple of years.

Anthony Davis? Debatable. Yes, the Lakers won a title with him and LeBron, but, for the investment, I think most people (and most Laker fans) expected more than one trip to the finals and one season of winning more than 43 games in four years.

You could argue the Chris Paul-to-the-Suns trade worked because he definitely elevated Phoenix, but he also was a 15-year vet that wasn't acquired for a slew of assets (one protected 1R pick leaving the Suns + 2 role-player-level semi-starters). The Suns have regressed so considerably in two years since making the finals then that they just fired their coach. Actually, the two times he was involved in the "game-changing" trade in his prime, it basically flopped. He even ended up being moved after that to try to acquire a game-changer.

When you think about it, all that talk about knowing what you're getting when you trade for players like this is kind of a myth. The hit rate on these kinds of trades isn't a whole lot different than drafting in the top five.

Great post.

Yes many are saying a top 5 player has this huge risk, but a current allstar doesn't. Totally not true, even with a current allstars we aren't getting what they accomplished previously. We are getting a new player with new impacts in a new situation for new years ahead. They might not have the same role, the same health, the same team structure; so they might not have any of the similar accomplishments that they had in their younger years.

I also question if the league is changing from the prior decades of superstar duos claiming all the titles. We're seeing #1 seeds with 53 wins while the Blazers had 54 wins as a #5 seed. Were seeing multiple undrafted players starting on a roster up 3-0 in the conference finals. The league doesn't have take fouls that slow the game way down in the playoffs. The quality between an undrafted player and a lottery pick has never felt smaller. Talent still matters of course, but it might be better to load up a roster with 7 above average starters than 2 superstars up against the luxury tax with a bunch of scrubs.

 

[SharpesTriumph]

Just a completely awesome sentence. So very, very true. Trades are every bit the crap shoot as drafting, but drafting in the top three typically has a very good outcome. Also, if you miss, the financial strain is much less as well as the assets offered up in the trade for the veteran. Well done.

Yes, agreed great point.

Also if the Blazers trade say Ant and #3 for an aging star they also have to take on additional salary plus pay the guy a $250 million plus extension.

So were giving up basically three huge assets; the #3 pick on a cheap contract, Ant under 25 who even his detractors would admit is at least an average stater to amazing 6th man, plus another huge salary slot that could potentially add a third starting level player.

What are the chance Ant, the #3 pick, and this extra starter are flops for the Blazers? Likely much less than the chance a vet has injuries/less impact/or is irrelevant since the team has other factors not allowing them to contend.

The more we explore ideas of trades, draft, rebuild, or contend I tend to think the least risk and most reward is to just keep pick #3 and draft BPA.

 

[Pinwheel1]

I agree that older vets that cost too much to get are way too risky. Young one-and-done players come with a risk as well albeit a lot cheaper.
So what is the solution? If the pick is a no-brainer you keep it. If not I still lean towards trading the pick for a young player, but one who we have seen enough of that we feel confident can be a piece of the puzzle immediately and in the future. Someone who won't deplete our depth to get. I think that someone like Wagner would be a wise move.

 

[julius]

No one move is going to take a lottery team and make them a contender. It's going to take a trade (or two), quality signing (or two), and proper use of later draft picks (or two) to fill out a roster.

Brown/Bridges + Grant is A LOT better than say Aminu & Harkless though. And it's harder to fill out the top of a roster than it is the bench.

Definitely. BUT I think one thing that is positive (ish) going forward is, Neil was an idiot who didn't know how to construct a roster. I trust Joe a little bit more. His probation period is over once this off season ends though.

 

[SharpesTriumph]

to piggy back your piggyback...how much of a difference, realistically, did Grant make last year? While I wouldn't be upset with Bridges or Brown, I'm not sure if they'd make enough of a difference. Especially if the bench becomes anemic.

Agreed; even the Ant detractors have to admit he provided some key offense last year. So we'd be losing him, we'd be losing all his improvements, we'd be losing another salary slot between Ants contract and this new acquisition, we'd be losing all the future of the #3 pick.

Now if the Blazers were a second round team looking to take the last final step to contend yes that final trade for a two way all NBA level player might be worth it. But a lottery team with a historically laughable defense trying to acquire this veteran when it is likely to not lead to immediate contention? Sounds like a very shortsighted plan.

 

[Phatguysrule]

There is a player available at #3 in this draft who can contribute RIGHT NOW.

Dame will be more than happy if we get that guy.

 

[julius]

There is a player available at #3 in this draft who can contribute RIGHT NOW.

Dame will be more than happy if we get that guy.

Now if we can just hypnotize the Spurs and Hornets to pass on Wemby...

 

[PCmor7]

Just a completely awesome sentence. So very, very true. Trades are every bit the crap shoot as drafting, but drafting in the top three typically has a very good outcome. Also, if you miss, the financial strain is much less as well as the assets offered up in the trade for the veteran. Well done.

Financial strain is less, and the loss is the pick you missed ... it's sunk cost, and that's it. It's not like trading for COVID Gobert and continuing to pay for your mistake over and over and over like some kind of Tim Burton sequel to "Groundhog Day."

 

[SharpesTriumph]

There is a player available at #3 in this draft who can contribute RIGHT NOW.

Dame will be more than happy if we get that guy.

Brandon Miller - he's born the year prior to Sharpe, can immediately do all 3 of defend, shoot and pass, plays a Blazer position of need, and has #1 overall pick level talent/upside.

Blazers still have #23 to add another player that can build out the bench long term, and the MLE to get Dame his win now friend.

If you said at the trade deadline the Blazers would be able to run back a team next season with all of these pieces and keep all their future picks for a final win now trade later - we'd have been ecstatic.

 

[HansenYang]

The hit rate on these kinds of trades isn't a whole lot different than drafting in the top five.

GREAT point!
Completely agree with this.

 

[blazedanugz]

Yes, that is correct.

The perfect, never injured, young, All-NBA player will not be available for #3 and Ant. There is going to be some sacrifice and risk involved if a move is made. Unless we want to kick the can down other five years and continue to draft/develop internally and sign role players.

Jaylen browns “knee issues” are not affecting is trade value

 

[PCmor7]

Now if we can just hypnotize the Spurs and Hornets to pass on Wemby...

We just have to get the Hornets to trade with us ... then get the NBA to forfeit the Spurs pick because of Becky Hammons.

 

[Pinwheel1]

This is the type of trade we need.

"The Washington Bullets acquired veteran point guard Rod Strickland and forward Harvey Grant Monday night from the Portland Trail Blazers in exchange for forward Rasheed Wallace and guard Mitchell Butler"

 

[julius]

This is the type of trade we need.

"The Washington Bullets acquired veteran point guard Rod Strickland and forward Harvey Grant Monday night from the Portland Trail Blazers in exchange for forward Rasheed Wallace and guard Mitchell Butler"

I was very conflicted by that trade. I loved Rod, and had a soft spot in my fan heart for Harvey (tho he absolutely sucked as a Blazer), but I was excited about Rasheed.

 

[HansenYang]

to piggy back your piggyback...how much of a difference, realistically, did Grant make last year? While I wouldn't be upset with Bridges or Brown, I'm not sure if they'd make enough of a difference. Especially if the bench becomes anemic.

Grant is an average NBA talent, not a very good (Bridges & Brown) or elite talent.

One of the bigger issues is acquiring the players who truly have a bigger impact on winning (ie - Hart) over the players who LOOK like they should have an impact on winning.